| 1 |
2017-10-19 23:00 GMT+02:00 Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o>: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> W dniu czw, 19.10.2017 o godzinie 21∶08 +0200, użytkownik Michał Górny |
| 4 |
> napisał: |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > 4. The new hashes that are stronger and commonly available are |
| 7 |
> > SHA3/Keccak (using sponges) and BLAKE2 (HAIFA). Both are diverse from |
| 8 |
> > our current algorithms, so either is a good candidate. The choice of |
| 9 |
> > Keccak is purely arbitrary (because it's the winner?). |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Actually, a small correction here: we support more implementations |
| 13 |
> of SHA3 than BLAKE2, so the first one is less problematic for us. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Not researched in depth but: |
| 17 |
B2sum provided by coreutils is quite satisfacting*, it's pretty fast, while |
| 18 |
sha-3 is deemed to be slower than sha-2, maybe this could be weighted while |
| 19 |
choosing the algorithm wanted. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Both seem to take advantage of modern multicore CPUs but sha-3 does 11.7 |
| 22 |
[cpb]#0 (see #1) while an email seen on the internet say blake2 can reach 1 |
| 23 |
[cpb] (see #2) |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
#0 cpb = cpu cycles per byte |
| 26 |
#1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHA-3#Speed |
| 27 |
#2 http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2016-May/029297.html |
| 28 |
* (in my limited experience) |
Archives